In 1959, economists Kenneth J. Arrow and William M. Capron published an article responding to complaints of a shortage of scientists and engineers, noting that “in view of all the discussion of the ‘shortage’ problem, it is remarkable how little direct evidence is available.” Fifty-five years later, in 2014, demographer Michael S. Teitelbaum wrote: “The alarms about widespread shortages or shortfalls in the number of US scientists and engineers are quite inconsistent with nearly all available evidence.” Frequently, the main stakeholder groups steering these conversations—businesses, universities, and government research agencies—benefit from the push to train and import more STEM workers.Employment projections Workforce planning can be enhanced by estimating future needs, but the projections most often cited to support action for growing the supply of STEM workers—including by the National Science Board and even in the text of proposed legislation—come with serious caveats and limitations.But BLS has no reliable way to identify factors that could alter future demand trajectories, such as technological innovation, offshoring, and abrupt shifts in consumption patterns.BLS crafted these projections during the unusually slow jobs recovery in the aftermath of the Great Recession, likely biasing the estimates toward the low end.This mismatch is even more pronounced for engineering, where the number of degrees produced in a single academic year (148,120 in 2019–2020) exceeds not just the projected average annual growth, but the entire ten-year projected job growth from 2020 to 2030 (127,700)."